• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Individualism or Collectivism?

Individualism or Collectivism?

  • Individualism

    Votes: 25 78.1%
  • Collectivism

    Votes: 7 21.9%

  • Total voters
    32
If it were anarchistic, there would probably be no person in charge.

people would probably coalesce into kinship groups for mutual support. The head of the family, matriarch or patriarch, would be the de facto leader... until the motorcycle gangs started to form...:2razz:
 
people would probably coalesce into kinship groups for mutual support. The head of the family, matriarch or patriarch, would be the de facto leader... until the motorcycle gangs started to form.

I know, Ikari and I were discussing hypotheticals that could never be. In reality, we would end up like mad max or something similar with a LOT of people dying or enslaved.
 
I think most of our history, we have had tribal societies which would be a form of government, so it does not meet the criteria for extreme individualism which would require anarchy (no rules of any sort)

Prior to civilization we had... civilization? ;)

We've been here for 200 millenia. For the vast majority of that, there was no civilization.
 
Prior to civilization we had... civilization? ;)

We've been here for 200 millenia. For the vast majority of that, there was no civilization.

Even monkeys exist in tribes. I think there was no prior.
 
Good post except for the anarchy part. ;-) Neither of these extremes would work, I agree. The upper 10% (guessing on the %) of our society right now operates on a kind of individualism. They are targets for envy, ridicule. "Tax 'em! Who cares about 'em? They should pay more."

I'm afraid if we operated toooo closely to individualism, a whole lot of people would need food tasters.

Hey look, making up crap about the position of people we disagree with. How unusual...

What does that mean? I don't get it.

The part I bolded is pure spin and not reality, except maybe some envy. The reason the top 10 % pay more in taxes as a percentage is because that larger percentage effects their standard of living less. It 's not a lack of caring, or envy, or saying they should pay more, it's that they are less harmed by paying more.
 
I think most of our history, we have had tribal societies which would be a form of government, so it does not meet the criteria for extreme individualism which would require anarchy (no rules of any sort)

You don't see any real signs of government until the rise of cities and then agriculture. Prior to that people general spent too much time on the move to form stable interactions with groups any larger than an extended family.

Actual government requires specialization.
 
Last edited:
Even monkeys exist in tribes. I think there was no prior.

LMFAO We'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't see that as "collectivism". I can run off into the woods and live by myself, so could anyone. The govt is not necessary for our individual survival, and in many ways actually hampers it.
 
You don't see any real signs of government until the rise of cities and then agriculture. Prior to that people general spent too much time on the move to form stable interactions with groups any larger than an extended family.

Actual government requires specialization.

Any authority over a society that can make rules that the society has to live by would be the government. If great grandad was the tribal eldar, he would be the source of government.

LMFAO We'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't see that as "collectivism". I can run off into the woods and live by myself, so could anyone. The govt is not necessary for our individual survival, and in many ways actually hampers it.

You can run off into the woods and live today if you wanted to.
 
Any authority over a society that can make rules that the society has to live by would be the government.

Right, but one of the distinguishing characteristics of foraging societies is that no one makes rules that everyone has to abide by. Anthropologists say these people can "vote with their feet."
 
The part I bolded is pure spin and not reality, except maybe some envy. The reason the top 10 % pay more in taxes as a percentage is because that larger percentage effects their standard of living less. It 's not a lack of caring, or envy, or saying they should pay more, it's that they are less harmed by paying more.

One only has to look to this site and read some of the threads about the estate tax, as an example. Or about big business tax cuts. Or executive salaries/bonuses. The posts on those kinds of threads often reflect a distain for people who are wealthy.

I like your last sentence, though. Maybe people need to be a bit more articulate -- like you in that sentence.
 
Right, but one of the distinguishing characteristics of foraging societies is that no one makes rule that everyone has to abide by. Anthropologists say "people can vote with their feet."

Perhaps in some situations if the tribes are friendly to each other. But heck, we can emigrate today to friendly countries as well.
 
Last edited:
No I can't. I'd have to buy the land and pay yearly taxes on it.

It depends on where you go. There are plenty of places where that would not happen, such as south america, india, or asia.
 
One only has to look to this site and read some of the threads about the estate tax, as an example. Or about big business tax cuts. Or executive salaries/bonuses. The posts on those kinds of threads often reflect a distain for people who are wealthy.

I like your last sentence, though. Maybe people need to be a bit more articulate -- like you in that sentence.

You are seeing what you want to see.
 
Perhaps in some situations. In others angst between tribes were common and being caught by the other tribe would have resulted in injury or death.

What does this have to do with anything? I think I'm missing your point here...
 
What does this have to do with anything? I think I'm missing your point here...

Sorry, I made a revision to it. Its basically the same thought but stated differently. Look again.
 
Perhaps in some situations if the tribes are friendly to each other. But heck, we can emigrate today to friendly countries as well.

Oh. I was speaking of within a single band. Most of these societies didn't have a lot of interaction with other bands, and where they did it was usually peaceful--they exchanged wives, held potlatches, etc.

Today it's different. Governments are already established worldwide.
 
Oh. I was speaking of within a single band. Most of these societies didn't have a lot of interaction with other bands, and where they did it was usually peaceful--they exchanged wives, held potlatches, etc.

Today it's different. Governments are already established worldwide.

I still don't think it really matters though. Here is the way I see it:
If a person does not like tribe a for some reason (perhaps the medicine man freaks out if people were purple beads or something). So he has two choices.
1. Go live alone as Rivrrat described. (which we can still do today)
2. Go to another tribe and live under a different set of rules.

Whether its tribe a or tribe b, its still a government as there are rules enforced on a society. Emigration was easier back than, but where there are people there is a set of rules, a leader(s), and there is an enforcement mechanism for those rules. Thats basically what government is.
 
I still don't think it really matters though. Here is the way I see it:
If a person does not like tribe a for some reason (perhaps the medicine man freaks out if people were purple beads or something). So he has two choices.
1. Go live alone as Rivrrat described. (which we can still do today)
2. Go to another tribe and live under a different set of rules.

Whether its tribe a or tribe b, its still a government as there are rules enforced on a society. Emigration was easier back than, but where there are people there is a set of rules, a leader(s), and there is an enforcement mechanism for those rules. Thats basically what government is.

There was no government or rules that they had to abide by (in a governmental sense). The primary enforcement mechanism, usually against obviously harmful things like incest and overt violence, etc, was a system of taboos... but anyone could violate them at any time, there was just an aversion to it because of their belief systems. Today we have governments which enforce laws, they had no such thing. Many problems were solved through either avoidance or normal social interactions, not the application of force.

There were leaders, but not in the sense you are discussing. "Big man" societies and chiefdoms came later.
 
Last edited:
There was no government or rules that they had to abide by (in a governmental sense). The primary enforcement mechanism, usually against obviously harmful things like incest and overt violence, etc, was a system of taboos... but anyone could violate them at any time, there was just an aversion to it because of their belief systems. Today we have governments which enforce laws, they had no such thing. Many problems were solved through either avoidance or normal social interactions, not the application of force.

There were leaders, but not in the sense you are discussing. "Big man" societies and chiefdoms came later.

If you look at tribal societies today there can be severe physical consequences to violating taboo things (especially in the middle east). I would say it was stronger than collective aversion.
 
Last edited:
That's because of the cultural makeup of the population which is Russia. In a country where the individuals are capable of self-governing without declining into destructiveness (due to education, culture, values etc), personal freedom facilitates success and personal/societal growth. It all depends on the population one has to work with.

This would be an example of what I am talking about. When communistic countries fail, they roll back government. This is superior, in my opinion, to an anarchistic society where it would devolve into a situation like somolia.

Raul Castro Says State Will Reduce Economic Role - ABC News
 
It depends on where you go. There are plenty of places where that would not happen, such as south america, india, or asia.

Well if you're talking about OTHER countries, of course. I'm working toward that end now.
 
Back
Top Bottom